Okie...
I don't have my pocket copy of the TFA script here to thumb through, so i guess I'll have to wait until I get home and rewatch and write down time signatures for you to show you exactly where little bits of background info were revealed in dialog, but for now I will restate that when i came out of watching TFA the first time I didn't have all of these nagging questions.. so I managed to catch the dialog just fine. I'll come back with more specifics later.
Please do, I'd be intrigued to see the results.
Also, I didn't say only fans of the film could discuss it. did you read what i wrote? you must have, because you quoted me enough. I said that it made no sense to me that someone
who so vehemently hates a movie would continue to engage in debate about it. If that person saw some good in it, then i could see why they would continue..perhaps hoping to come to a better understanding through discourse or change some of their views in light of other viewers' opinions or thoughts.
Nobody asked for a praise-fest, either. Perhaps if you spent less time taking what people say to an extreme and paraphrasing it, and more time responding to what was actually written, alot of these things could be avoided.
Okay, break it down then. You straight away questioned the point of someone being here and being involved in a discussion solely on his low opinion on the movie. Then you suggested he's just here to spread hate. All this (I assume) in the name of positivity and anti-hate. I didn't have to take anything to the extreme, what you said was extreme to begin with, I merely mirrored it. If there's no point for someone to be involved in the discussion of something that he/she utterly dislikes then surely there's no point in the involvement of those who can't do anything but sing praises, right?
I mean no offense here but I'm baffled by your logic. There are reasons galore for someone who dislikes something to be involved in discussions as long as the discussion is kept civil and there are arguments and counterarguments instead of just barfing up "this is rubbish/no this is great/no this is rubbish". There's tons of things I initially disliked a lot and engaging in discussions made me change my mind about them. There are plenty of things I liked and engaging in discussions with people that didn't made me realize that those things weren't exactly up to scratch indeed. Then there's plenty of things I like and I talk to people who don't like it and we agree to disagree. Again, I emphasize as long as the discussion is kept civil and there is reasoning involved.
I will say ahead of that though, that having every bit of info about how the First order rose to power for example is not paramount to the story, and if one wants to know that answer it is easily found in ancillary materials (which are readily available) and I would remind the audience that this is how we know alot of what we know about the OT BTW... as lots of little details were not fleshed out in the dialog and we only know then because of things that came out later.
The thing about this sequel trilogy is...well, they're sequels. The OT did not need massive backstories, it had the luxury of being able to drop you in medias res and let you experience the world. That being said, the exposition of the main political setting happened in the first 3 minutes of ANH:
- Title crawl explaining there's an evil galactic empire that has the ability to crush planets and a small rebel alliance against it
- Massive, seemingly never-ending Imperial ship vs tiny ill-equipped rebel ship (visual storytelling)
- Faceless white fascist troopers led by a huge black skull faced goon slaughtering people with faces with no questions asked (visual storytelling)
Then there's a bit of backstory from Ben and more expository dialogue in the Imperial meeting about how there was a peaceful and more revered Republic that was overthrown by the evil empire. That's all the exposition you really needed to understand ANH.
When you have a series that goes from A to B then ends in C and 30 years later the story starts at G, you kinda need to refer to D, E and F.
I do recall that there is a scene--while missing from the theatrical release, but nevertheless on the blu ray--which shows Leia dicissing some of this with her friend in the Senate.
You must have a different edition of the bluray than I do, coz I don't have this scene on mine.
But the argument that "if it isn't in the theatrical release then we can't possibly know it, and if we have to read other things to get those details, it's bad writing" isn't a valid argument at all. as many have said (myself included) we knew as little about certain details in the OT at the time... and it was the thirst for knowledge about those things that either led to the extra materials being released or led those wanting to know to seek them out.
Again, what was required to understand the story were in the movies. The only thing I agree with that was never explicitly said in the movies and only the novelizations explained was how and why Vader was wearing that suit.
You cannot answer every niggling little question in 2 hours.
You don't have to. Just flesh out the background enough so it's understandable easy.
how much did you know about the Emperor after ESB? Hmm? Was it as much as we know now? No. Why? Because those answers were filled in after ESB was released. Some of them LONG after. that's how this works, and we all know it.
We knew that he was the head of the empire, personally leading it instead of just being a figurehead (like he was meant to be originally), we knew he was a dark force user and that even Vader was cowed and humbled by him. What further information did we need for the story at that point?
I'm not saying TFA is flawless.. never said that. BUT.. if you're going to have issues with it, the fact that they didn't spell out for you where The First Order got their ships from for example should not be one of them. If it's germaine to the story, they will put it in. If it's background clarification you desire, you get that from other media. This is nothing new.
I applaud you if you understood it perfectly just from the movie. It made no sense to me as to why there is a Resistance when there's the Republic, Leia should simply be part of the Republic army. Who does she resist? Resistances in history were formed against an occupying force. Was the First Order occupying the Republic? Was it smaller, larger, equal force to the Republic? I was left with these questions because last time I checked in the Empire was defeated and the New Republic was going to be set up by our heroes. 3 minutes of exposition or 2-3 extra sentences in the title crawl could have explained how the chessboard is set up. Not saying the movie tanks because of this but we are allowed to discuss it if it bothers some of us, right?
I just want to tell you both, good luck. We're all counting on you.
Surely, you can't be serious...?